Legal thoughts, since 2005.

This week's Daily Record column is entitled "How to choose Web-based legal software." My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

How to choose Web-based legal software

These days, more and more lawyers are moving to Web-based legal software because it’s convenient, provides 24/7 on-the-go-access to case-related information, and is affordable. The good news is now that cloud computing is becoming more familiar and accepted, new platforms are being introduced into the legal marketplace at record speed.

So, what’s a lawyer who has made the decision to move to the cloud to do? How do you choose between the different cloud-based legal programs? Read on to learn how to make the right choice for your law firm’s needs.

First, compare the features offered by the different legal Web-based computing platforms. Then, narrow your search down to two or three platforms that offer most of the features you’re looking for. Are you in the market for a full scale law practice management system that offers contact management, calendaring, billing, invoicing and document management — the works? Or are you simply looking for a single purpose system, such as one that offers only billing, document management or online storage?

But don’t rule out one platform just because it doesn’t include every feature you need. One major advantage of cloud computing systems is how easy it is for the developer to implement changes based on user feedback. Oftentimes, legal cloud computing providers roll out new features every few weeks. So don’t eliminate an otherwise strong contender simply because the platform lacks one or two features that are on your wish list. Contact the provider and ask about the missing features. It’s entirely possible that the provider will add those features in the near future.

Next consider the interface. The interface is extremely important, since you’ll be spending lots of time using the platform. Is it intuitive or do you find yourself constantly struggling to figure out how to add and manipulate information in the system? The usability of the interface is extremely important. Make sure it works for you and your staff.

Price is also an important consideration, but it shouldn’t be a deal breaker. To an extent, as the old adage goes — you get what you pay for.

That being said, one of the benefits of moving to a cloud-based system is that it’s supposed to be more affordable than owning and maintaining your own servers and paying for the annual licensing fees of server-based software. So if the monthly fees of one legal cloud computing company are higher than those of competitors’ products which offer similar features, you might want to think twice before signing up.

Another important consideration is the ease of transitioning to the new cloud-based system. Will it be easy to import data into the platform from existing programs? Will you need to continue using other software or does the new system effectively replace them, thus making compatibility a non-issue?

Another important consideration is customer support matters. It matters—a lot. If you run into an issue, you want it resolved quickly and efficiently. If you’re routinely unable to reach a representative from your new cloud computing provider, then you’ll find that your frustration levels will go through the roof. Customer service is extremely important and can make or break your legal cloud computing experience.

Also important is your duty to research the security provided by the cloud computing provider. As I’ve discussed in many past articles, you have an ethical obligation to vet the provider to ensure that reasonable steps are taken to ensure that confidential client data is secure. Check to see if your jurisdiction has issued ethics decisions on point and carefully review the standards set forth.

Next, research customer satisfaction. Find out what current (and past) customers think of each computing product that you’re considering. In this day and age, it’s not difficult to find customer reviews and feedback about the major legal cloud computing products available. Search for blog posts reviewing the different products and read the comments to the post, if any.

Join some of the major online forums for lawyers, such as MiloGroup and the ABA’s Solosez listserv. Post on these sites and seek feedback from users or search the archives using the names of the products that you’re considering to locate past reviews and posts about each product.

Finally, sign up for a free trial. Most legal cloud computing providers offer a no-strings-attached 30-day free trial. Ideally, starting the trial should be simple and hassle-free. Sign up and dive in.

If the interface is user-friendly, it shouldn’t be too difficult to get started with the platform on your own. Spend some time testing it out. And, if others in your firm will be using it, make sure that they try it out, too.

Once you’ve followed these steps, you’ll be ready to move your firm to the cloud. It’s a big decision — and it’s not an easy one. But if you carefully consider your options and do your research ahead of time, you’ll be well on your way to choosing the right legal cloud computing software for your law firm.

This week's Daily Record column is entitled "Courts still grapple with social media evidence discovery." My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Courts still grapple with social media evidence discovery

As attorneys realize the utility of social media evidence in litigation, broad requests for unfettered access to social media accounts are becoming all the more common. As a result, New York courts have been grappling with social media discovery issues more frequently. More often than not, the courts have done a good job of analyzing the requests within the context of the case and permitting access only when doing so would lead to a reasonable likelihood of obtaining evidence relevant to the issues at hand.

For example, there was Abrams v. Pecile, 83 A.D.3d 527 (1st Dept. 2011), where the First Department refused to allow access to the plaintiff’s social networking accounts since the defendant failed to show that doing so would lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the defense of the lawsuit.

Next, in Patterson v. Turner Construction Company, 2011 WL 5083155 (1st Dept. 2011), the court likened the plaintiff’s private messages on Facebook to a diary and concluded that, if relevant, they were discoverable, but limited access to the Facebook data and required that the trial court first conduct an in camera review to determine if there was evidence relevant to the lawsuit.

In Fawcett v. Altieri, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 23010, the Richmond County Supreme Court addressed this issue of the discoverability of social media records and denied the defendant’s motion to compel the production of the infant plaintiff’s social media data, concluding that the request was overly broad and that the defendants had failed to make the necessary showing of relevance. Likewise, in Kregg v. Muldonado, 98 A.D.3d 1289 (4th Dept. 2012), the Fourth Department also denied unfettered access to the infant plaintiff’s social media accounts.

This issue was again raised in Del Gallo v. City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 50929, a decision handed down just a few weeks ago. In Del Gallo, the plaintiffs brought personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits for injuries sustained by a mother and the death of her infant daughter when a tree limb fell on them in Central Park. During the discovery phase of the lawsuit, the defendants sought access to the entire contents of the mother’s LinkedIn account, claiming that it would provide evidence relevant to her post-accident condition.

At the outset, the New York County Supreme Court noted that the medium doesn’t change the analysis: “(C)ourts recognize that, generally, … discovery of … social networking postings … requires the application of basic discovery principles in a novel context.’”

Applying this concept and the standards established in the cases set forth above, the court declined to allow access to the plaintiff’s LinkedIn account: “Defendants have not shown…that they are entitled to discovery of plaintiff’s communications with former colleagues inquiring about her condition, or to all other material on plaintiff’s LinkedIn account … (D)efendants offer no more than the mere hope of finding relevant evidence which is insufficient to warrant such disclosure … To be sure, anything that a person says or does might in some theoretical sense be reflective of her emotional state. But that is hardly justification for requiring the production of every thought she may have reduced to writing.”

Again, this is yet another wise decision issued by a New York court that avoids a knee jerk reaction to a new medium. The court carefully applied precedent and assessed the discovery request within the context of the claims alleged and the likelihood that the evidence obtained from the LinkedIn account would result in information relevant to the litigation.

Although courts and ethics committees don’t always get it right when it comes to social media, it’s heartening to see that at least in the context of discovery proceedings, New York courts are consistently handing down decisions that will withstand the test of time.

disclaimer

This site is intended purely as a resource guide for educational and informational purposes and is not intended to provide specific legal advice. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney in your state. The use and receipt of the information offered on this site is not intended to create, nor does it create, an attorney-client relationship.

Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or otherwise. However, please be advised that an attorney-client relationship is not created through the act of sending electronic mail to me.

The comments on this blog are solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does Legal Antics or Nicole L. Black endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.

Further, any information provided on this blog or in the comments should be taken at your own risk.